The Fine-Tuning and Design Catch-22

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@EricMH

If you define CSI as “that which requires intelligence to create” then your argument is completely circular. Dr. Swamidass has pointed this out to you multiple times I believe.

If you’ve been reading my posts carefully you’d know this is not what I’m saying.

@EricMH this has been your claim. Here is one example:

@EricMH

By definition, if intelligence can create CSI from scratch, as ID claims, then it must be a halting oracle.

@EricMH

Mathematically, there is no way to get CSI without intrinsic teleology.

@EricMH

If (1) is true, then well known theorems like the law of information non growth means unguided (and probably guided) evolution cannot generate highly complex organisms through mutating DNA. This is identical to the ID claim that chance + determinism cannot generate CSI.

On the other hand, if (2) is true, then there is some super Turing process at work. This turns out to be identical to the ID claim that intelligence is necessary to generate CSI.

@EricMH

This is why I said all the ID arguments reduce to Dembski’s CSI argument. CSI and the information producing capability of intelligence is the central issue.

This is just a few samplings. You are saying that Intelligence is a uniquely capable of creating CSI. However, to your credit, you have changed your position on some of this. Now you acknowledge that observing MI in nature is not necessarily evidence of CSI. So what is CSI?

It seems to reduce to merely some immeasurable thing that is defined as what is uniquely produced by intelligence.